On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0400, Saucy wrote:

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Saucy wrote:
>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a
>>>>> valid
>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>>> requires validation.
>>>>>
>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>>>
>>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>>>> Microsoft's fault.
>>>>
>>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
>>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.
>>>
>>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
>>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.
>>>
>>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist
>>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all
>>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured
>>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against
>>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for
>>> error][and as this weekend has shown].
>>>
>>> Saucy
>>
>>
>> But here you are talking with people who
>>
>> 1. Know of the existence of these groups
>> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc
>> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.
>>
>> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly
>> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has
>> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,
>> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a
>> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls
>> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours
>> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in
>> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very
>> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,
>> maybe more.
>>
>> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the
>> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to pay
>> it, right?
>>
>> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the
>> server went down.
>
>
>
> No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it
> flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says
> "Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.
> Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.

One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server
in the first place?

Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic
is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but
1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.

Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows
PC at that as most software is windows based.

Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one
available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a
bunch of trains.

So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today
seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no answer.

I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that
doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
> WHAT their business is to have servers go down
> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

Amazing that many people were validating there Vista when the servers were
down. That is one popular OS.

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com ...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0400, Saucy wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>>>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause
>>>>>> Vista
>>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>>>> requires validation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>>>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>>>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>>>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>>>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>>>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>>>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>>>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>>>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>>>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>>>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>>>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>>>>
>>>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>>>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>>>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>>>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>>>>> Microsoft's fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
>>>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.
>>>>
>>>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
>>>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.
>>>>
>>>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to
>>>> exist
>>>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all
>>>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has
>>>> occured
>>>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against
>>>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room
>>>> for
>>>> error][and as this weekend has shown].
>>>>
>>>> Saucy
>>>
>>>
>>> But here you are talking with people who
>>>
>>> 1. Know of the existence of these groups
>>> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc
>>> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.
>>>
>>> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly
>>> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has
>>> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,
>>> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a
>>> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls
>>> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours
>>> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in
>>> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very
>>> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,
>>> maybe more.
>>>
>>> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the
>>> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to
>>> pay
>>> it, right?
>>>
>>> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the
>>> server went down.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it
>> flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says
>> "Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.
>> Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.
>
> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server
> in the first place?
>
> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic
> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but
> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.
>
> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows
> PC at that as most software is windows based.
>
> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one
> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a
> bunch of trains.
>
> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today
> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no
> answer.
>
> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that
> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> 君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
> 君のこと忘れたときがないから



That's easy.

1. Activate by telephone.

or

2. Install an earlier version e.g. Windows 2000 that doens't require
activation.

keepout******.com.invalid wrote:
>
> I'm just curious as to how many errors and problems existed with
> pencils and type writers compared to the PROGRESS we now enjoy,
> spending 75% of the time keeping the OS from self destructing ?
> At worst a pencil sharpener or 2nd pencil would keep work from coming
> to a 3 day stand still while someone finds another box of pencils.

I never thought I'd again hear the canard "computers can only do what humans
can do." Only a true Luddite would come up with such a bizarre comparison.

Even, as in your example, the computer was up only 25% of the time, the PC
on your desk could out-perform 1000 people with pencils. Even if the pencils
didn't need sharpening.

The issue has been resolved.

Visit: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/def...displaylang=en
and click on "Validate Windows". Afterward, log-off your account and
log back on and the Windows Vista Aero feature will return to normal
functionality.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tom Porterfield" wrote:

Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
requires validation.

WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
--
Tom Porterfield

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com ...

> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server
> in the first place?
>
> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic
> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but
> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.
>
> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows
> PC at that as most software is windows based.
>
> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one
> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a
> bunch of trains.
>
> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today
> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no
> answer.
>
> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that
> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.
>


Well my Samsung comes with a pre-activated Vista.
No need to ever call M$ unless you need an update, even after a reinstall
from the dvd
I expect many others are like this.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:39:45 -0400, Saucy wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0400, Saucy wrote:
>>
>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>>>>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a
>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause
>>>>>>> Vista
>>>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>>>>> requires validation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>>>>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>>>>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>>>>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>>>>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>>>>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>>>>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>>>>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>>>>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>>>>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>>>>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>>>>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>>>>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>>>>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>>>>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>>>>>> Microsoft's fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
>>>>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
>>>>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.
>>>>>
>>>>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to
>>>>> exist
>>>>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all
>>>>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has
>>>>> occured
>>>>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against
>>>>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room
>>>>> for
>>>>> error][and as this weekend has shown].
>>>>>
>>>>> Saucy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But here you are talking with people who
>>>>
>>>> 1. Know of the existence of these groups
>>>> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc
>>>> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.
>>>>
>>>> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly
>>>> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has
>>>> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,
>>>> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a
>>>> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls
>>>> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours
>>>> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in
>>>> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very
>>>> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,
>>>> maybe more.
>>>>
>>>> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the
>>>> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to
>>>> pay
>>>> it, right?
>>>>
>>>> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the
>>>> server went down.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it
>>> flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says
>>> "Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.
>>> Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.
>>
>> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server
>> in the first place?
>>
>> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic
>> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but
>> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.
>>
>> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows
>> PC at that as most software is windows based.
>>
>> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one
>> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a
>> bunch of trains.
>>
>> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today
>> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no
>> answer.
>>
>> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that
>> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.
>>
>> --
>> Stephan
>> 2003 Yamaha R6
>>
>> 君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
>> 君のこと忘れたときがないから
>
>
>
> That's easy.
>
> 1. Activate by telephone.

First-time activation...fair enough (can just temporarily use network then).

But what I am wondering about is Vista's "need/want" to call home? What if
it can't call home?

>
> or
>
> 2. Install an earlier version e.g. Windows 2000 that doens't require
> activation.

Assuming *drivers* are available...=)


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

* Charlie Tame:
> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>
>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>> requires validation.
>>
>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>
>
> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>
> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>
> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>
> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>
> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>
>
> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

Exactly!

> Something stinks here, badly.

Worse than my critters crap baking in the back yard.


-Michael

Tom Porterfield wrote:
> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>
> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
> requires validation.
>
> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

Microsoft is reporting the issue is now resolved. If you were impacted
you can go to http://www.microsoft.com/genuine and re-validate your copy
of Vista and all should return to normal.
--
Tom Porterfield

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:24:19 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.co m...
>
>> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server
>> in the first place?
>>
>> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic
>> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but
>> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.
>>
>> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows
>> PC at that as most software is windows based.
>>
>> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one
>> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a
>> bunch of trains.
>>
>> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today
>> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no
>> answer.
>>
>> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that
>> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.
>>
>
>
>Well my Samsung comes with a pre-activated Vista.
>No need to ever call M$ unless you need an update, even after a reinstall
>from the dvd
>I expect many others are like this.

You are missing the point. Vista "phones home" randomly on it's own
behind your back. That is how you can get tagged as counterfeit.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:24:21 -0400, MICHAEL <u158627_emr2@dslr.net>
wrote:

>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

When told about this major blunder this was Ballmer's immediate
response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y89wBYVHkY4

Saucy wrote:

> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>
>>>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>requires validation.
>>>
>>>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>
>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>
>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>
>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>
>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>> Microsoft's fault.
>>
>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.
>
> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.
>
> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist
> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all save
> a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured this
> weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against perceived
> violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for error][and
> as this weekend has shown].
>
> Saucy

Plus the fact that Microsoft has stated it's prepared to wait for years
while the Chinese decide whether they want to start using legit copies of
Microsoft's toy operating system.

Cheers.

--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

keepout******.com.invalid wrote:

> I'm just curious as to how many errors and problems existed with pencils and
> type writers compared to the PROGRESS we now enjoy, spending 75% of the time
> keeping the OS from self destructing ?
> At worst a pencil sharpener or 2nd pencil would keep work from coming to a 3
> day stand still while someone finds another box of pencils.

That's a keeper, hilarious.

http://www.c4vct.com/kym/humor/nasapen.htm

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:24:19 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.c om...
>>
>>> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any
>>> server in the first place?
>>>
>>> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic
>>> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but
>>> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.
>>>
>>> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a
>>> windows PC at that as most software is windows based.
>>>
>>> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one
>>> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls
>>> a bunch of trains.
>>>
>>> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today
>>> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC
>>> that doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well my Samsung comes with a pre-activated Vista.
>>No need to ever call M$ unless you need an update, even after a reinstall
>>from the dvd
>>I expect many others are like this.
>
> You are missing the point. Vista "phones home" randomly on it's own
> behind your back. That is how you can get tagged as counterfeit.

Why are you telling dennis this? He already claims to be an expert and knows
everything there is to know about computers. Heck, he just finished
lecturing me about how knowledgeable he is. Surely he's aware that Vista
phones home.

Cheers.

--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

MICHAEL wrote:
> * Charlie Tame:
>> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>
>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>> requires validation.
>>>
>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>
>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>>
>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>>
>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>>
>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>>
>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>>
>>
>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?
>
> Exactly!
>
>> Something stinks here, badly.
>
> Worse than my critters crap baking in the back yard.
>
>
> -Michael


I hope you don't mind if I decline the offer to personally validate that
statement. :)